Minor comments on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt
sdawkins at cynetanetworks.com
Fri Feb 28 12:39:17 CET 2003
My recollection from the OUTSIDE was that (other) groups weren't
willing to incorporate IETF protocols by reference until we started
telling people we were an SDO, too - they cycled a couple of times
including IETF spec text, and trying to keep it synced with IETF
versions as they moved forward ("moved around"), but this was horrid.
Wasn't the MILSPEC version of TCP an example of this kind of thing?
("Who would ever send out an RFQ for something that conformed to a
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS?")
So I think external marketing started about the same time as Ran remembers.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja at extremenetworks.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:17 PM
> To: Scott Bradner
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Minor comments on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt
> On Friday, Feb 28, 2003, at 11:23 America/Montreal, Scott
> Bradner wrote:
> > to be clear - the IETF *is* a Standards Development
> Organization (SDO)
> > and has been one "forever"
> > see for example RFC 2691
> > Scott
> That would be "forever" defined as something like "since the 1990s".
> The early IETF didn't claim to be a SDO, but instead mostly was a
> coordination/cooperation activity among ARPA/DoD-sponsored research
> (and later the vendors supporting ARPA/DCA). I believe Bob Braden or
> Dave Clark could come up with the date that ARPA/DCA first asked for
> to be a formal sorting of standards-track vs non-standards-track RFCs.
> If my own memory serves, and I have not checked my records today,
> that date was around 1990.
> As to when IETF started making the SDO claim externally, I'm not sure,
> but it was slightly later -- maybe around 1992 or so.
More information about the Problem-statement